COUNCILLORS in Coventry are expected to throw out two planning applications today because they are in green belt areas of the city.

Planning officers have recommended proposals for two separate sites in Allesley and Allesley Green be refused by the planning committee.

It follows massive campaigns by residents across Coventry to stop green belt land being used for future development of the city.

The first plan is for a site in Oak Lane, Allesley Green where proposals have been submitted to turn three outbuildings, including a barn and a post-war flat roofed building, into a large garage.

Applicant Mark Went wants to use the proposed structure to house up to ten motor vehicles at a time for an internet vehicle selling business.

However, in the planning report council officer Nigel Smith said it would be an “inappropriate development” for the area and said the council was worried that granting permission would conflict with planning policies which seek to concentrate development in urban areas of the city.

The Highways team has also raised concerns about safety along the road and 26 letters of objection from residents have been received by the council.

Residents have argued the area is not suitable for such commercial uses and could have a material impact on the site, which is within the green belt.

Coun John Gazey (Cons, Bablake) supports their concerns and will speak on their behalf at the planning committee meeting today.

In the second application, plans have been submitted to erect an office building to the side of a semi-detached house in Staircase Lane, Allesley.

The building would house a landscaping business which is currently based in portable buildings the council says are unlawful.

Council planning officer Liam D’Onofrio says in his report: “If permission were to be granted it would also have the effect of extending the residential area and this encroachment would contribute to urbanisation of the site resulting in a detrimental impact upon the openness of the green belt.”

Applicant Simon Rotherham, however, claims the development is not inappropriate and would instead be a “visual improvement”.